New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How long is too long?

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
I'm 6'2, 165lbs and ski race style, GS carves. Last year I demo-ed Atomic GS-9, 180s and loved the ride. Now I know shaped skis go short and have discovered the joys of the new technology but I'm old school and still pack around my Rossi 205cm Slalom Equipes. I even still have my Rossi 215cm Giante Slalom from high school race days. This season I'm looking at Atomic SX10/11, or the Fischer RX8/9 . Question is should I go to a 175cm ski? I know short is where everyone is at now, but its a little hard to get over the fact that I'm looking down on my ski tips when I stand next them.
post #2 of 12
I'm about 3 inches shorter than you but the same weight. An SX11 or SX12 in 175 should be fine. If I were getting an SX12 I would be looking at 170 cm. You don't need to go long to get a stable SX11. Just for reference sake, my quiver goes from 165 SCs to 208 SGs.

BTW what type of snow and mountain do you plan on skiing with them?
post #3 of 12
I'm shorter than 6ft and I ski 180cm Atomic GS12pb.
post #4 of 12
It's not height so much as weight that matters. For strictly GS turns at speed, I would probably buy a 180cm or maybe 190 cm ski. For an all-around ski, then a 170 cm suits me best back east, 175 to 180 if I had bigger mountains to play on. For slalom-type turns, I'm happy with 165 cm.
post #5 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
It's not height so much as weight that matters. For strictly GS turns at speed, I would probably buy a 180cm or maybe 190 cm ski. For an all-around ski, then a 170 cm suits me best back east, 175 to 180 if I had bigger mountains to play on. For slalom-type turns, I'm happy with 165 cm.
I also weigh less than he does About 140lbs..
post #6 of 12
[hijack]
Grook,
I remember when I weighed 145 lbs. I find the extra 20 lbs helps me keep the edge down and prevents it from skidding when making slower smaller radius turns. Have your tried very short slalom skis say 155 cm? You might notice it being easier to arc tight turns with them. [/hijack]
post #7 of 12
Thread Starter 
Thanks Ghost. I did ski a 173 Atomic GS-11 and it got a little chattery at speed but admittedly, I wasn't used to skiing a shaped ski. All the same, I think I demo the 180cm, and try 170-175 if I get a chance. I live on the East coast but we're moving back to Germany so Alps and Dolomites here we come!!! Hard pack powder seems to be the norm there for cruising runs. Ice at times but not often.
post #8 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
[hijack]
Grook,
I remember when I weighed 145 lbs. I find the extra 20 lbs helps me keep the edge down and prevents it from skidding when making slower smaller radius turns. Have your tried very short slalom skis say 155 cm? You might notice it being easier to arc tight turns with them. [/hijack]
Didn't find it easier to arc - well.. Easier, but it's funnier on my atomics and I can manage without problems
post #9 of 12
Longer skis are just smoother riding. Short skis carve very well these days, and some have good stability, but simple geometry dictates that when you hit a bump the short ski responds more abruptly. If you like longer skis, stay with them. They all turn pretty easily these days.
post #10 of 12
I think there was a "shorter is better" fad in recent years that went overboard (preceded by the long ski standard many of us grew up with). We seem to be settling on more reasonable lengths nowadays.

I am 6'1, generally 190 lbs. I happen to own some RX-8s in the 180cm size which is no longer offered. I was 40 lbs heavier when I bought them and 180cm made sense at the time, but 175cm would be better for me now. The 180s still ski fine for me, but feel a little long.

I just bought some leftover RX-9s ($459 from ski-depot.com) and got 175cm on those (they still offer a 180cm size on the RX-9). Both the RX-8 and RX-9 are fairly stout skis, and you can get away with going a bit shorter on them. Just don't go too short, or else they become toy skis.

You are tall, which suggests 180cm, but given your light weight, I think you would do fine on the 175cm. I can't say enough good things about the RX-8 and RX-9 -- they are both great skis. The 9 is a bit more stable and relaxed, and less of a dedicated carver than the 8, and I prefer the 9 for an all-around hardpack ski. I think you'd be happy on either the 175cm or 180cm RX-9. If you want short turns, get the 175cm RX-8.

Good luck!
post #11 of 12
I'm 5'9" around 180lbs. I have the GS9's in 180 and love them. I use them for highspeed carving on groomers. If they were my only ski, I'd go to around 170cm. But they're not, I also have the Metron M11's in 162 (that was tough for me to get used to) and love them. They are my go to ski for everything except high speed GS type turns on hardpack.

To answer your question though, too long is a ski that you can't effectively control. Converesly too short is a ski that chatters at speed or that you can overpower in a turn.
post #12 of 12
You should get some 201cm Stockli Stormrider DP's......hotness.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion